Published AAO appeal decisions

Business owner self-petitioner in disposable personal hygiene products manufacturing sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed dismissal finding petitioner satisfied no three initial criteria; original contributions claim based on industry standard participation lacked sufficient evidence of major significance.

A food and wine entrepreneur planning to open a restaurant sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability, with a national interest waiver. The AAO dismissed the appeal, concluding that only one of the five claimed criteria was met rather than the required three, and reserved the waiver issue.

Health technology company petitions for beneficiary as EB-1A extraordinary ability individual. Beneficiary met six of eight claimed evidentiary criteria, but AAO affirmed denial, finding evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of technology entrepreneurship field.

An aviation pilot and entrepreneur sought NIW to develop flight planning software for general aviation. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of national importance; the proposed endeavor's benefits appeared limited to the petitioner's startup without demonstrating broader impacts on the aviation industry or economy.

An employer petitioned for a technology entrepreneur seeking extraordinary ability (EB-1A). Claimed seven criteria initially; director found two met (judging, leading role). On appeal, petitioner claimed five others. AAO found awards and membership unmet and declined to analyze remaining criteria, reserving final merits because threshold initial evidence requirements not satisfied.

CEO seeking NIW for eco-friendly manufacturing startup claimed national importance of his business venture. AAO held the endeavor lacks broader field-level impact, representing only routine company-specific benefit insufficient for NIW, distinguishing meaningful national importance from merely important work.

A tourism specialist and entrepreneur self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed that the petitioner met fewer than three evidentiary criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

An entrepreneur sought EB-1A classification based on five claimed criteria. The AAO affirmed SCOPS findings that he met judging and leading role criteria but rejected published material due to missing author attribution, original contributions as lacking major significance, and high salary due to insufficient documentation. Appeal dismissed.

Chief operating officer of NSF-funded fire suppression technology startup seeking EB-2 NIW. Qualified for underlying EB-2. AAO affirmed denial of first Dhanasar prong: while fire suppression field is important, petitioner's specific operational work lacks national importance beyond employer benefits and does not broadly impact the industry.

Production engineer and entrepreneur sought EB-2 NIW for consultancy business. AAO found petitioner qualified as advanced degree professional but rejected endeavor's national importance. Consultancy services lacked sufficient prospective impact on industry or economy; job creation projections insufficiently detailed. Appeal dismissed.

Project manager and entrepreneur in aviation technology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner failed to establish three of ten regulatory criteria, withdrawing service center's finding on judging and rejecting original contributions and leading role claims.

Architectural designer seeking NIW for patented panelized housing system business claiming national importance addressing housing shortage and sustainability. AAO found substantial merit but not national importance, as evidence did not establish prospective national-level impact beyond company operations or how work would significantly impact depressed areas.

An entrepreneur planning a cybersecurity and crisis management company sought EB-2 exceptional ability classification with a national interest waiver. The AAO found only the academic record criterion satisfied, withdrew the service center's findings on the other criteria, and reserved the waiver analysis, dismissing the appeal.

An entrepreneur and inventor from Transnistria claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting four evidentiary criteria. The AAO affirmed the Service Center's denial, finding he failed to demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized awards or judging experience, thus falling short of the required three criteria threshold.

Entrepreneur in trucking and logistics sought EB-2 NIW for truck business management consulting firm in Florida. AAO dismissed, holding proposed endeavor lacked national importance; general alignment with government initiatives and industry importance insufficient without evidence of specific innovations.

Entrepreneur who co-founded ventures in Georgia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met three initial criteria after identifying leading or critical role role not credited by SCOPS. Decision remanded for final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.

An EB-2 applicant seeking national interest waiver filed a third motion to reconsider after prior dismissals. The AAO dismissed the motion because petitioner merely disagreed with conclusions without identifying legal or policy errors as required for reconsideration. Underlying petition remained denied.

General manager and logistician in delivery and transportation sought EB-2 with national interest waiver. AAO found substantial merit in endeavor but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to demonstrate national importance of his specific business beyond local clientele.

Entrepreneur and operations manager proposing eco-friendly swimwear manufacturing and distribution business claiming national interest waiver. AAO dismissed appeal, finding endeavor lacks national importance; sustainability claims vague and speculative, niche market focus insufficient for material influence on industry or economy at national scale.

A CEO and co-founder sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO remanded the case because SCOPS relied on undisclosed research and failed to incorporate all evidence into the record or consider petitioner's comparable evidence requests under regulatory provisions.

An international travel company owner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability in entrepreneurship and tourism. Although SCOPS found four criteria met, the AAO determined the membership criterion failed because fellowship does not require expert judgment of outstanding achievement. The AAO dismissed, finding petitioner merely very good, not among the small percentage at field's very top.

Entrepreneur seeks national interest waiver for EB-2 classification but lacks required advanced degree or proven exceptional ability. AAO held she failed to establish advanced degree eligibility and that her proposed endeavor lacks national importance; serves underserved clients but lacks broader field impact, accomplishments, or demonstrated track record.

A systems engineering specialist and IT entrepreneur sought NIW classification for a software solutions consultancy firm. The AAO remanded because the service center misidentified the endeavor as language education, failed to analyze evidence regarding national importance, and provided insufficient explanation of its findings, preventing meaningful appellate review.

An entrepreneur in language education and cultural immersion training sought an EB-2 NIW. The AAO agreed the endeavor had merit but found it lacked the specific detail, evidence, and prospective impact necessary to establish national importance under Dhanasar's first prong, which is dispositive.

The petitioner is a chief executive and co-founder of a food technology company who sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming eight criteria. The service center accepted two, and he contested six on appeal. The AAO dismissed because he did not satisfy three criteria, and it did not reach the final merits.